January 15, 2013

World's "Top" Atheists: Dawkins, Singer and Woody Allen

There are a number of websites offering lists of "top" atheists, as defined by various criteria. The American Humanist Association offers a list of the top sexiest male and female atheists along with photos for viewers to "enjoy" at their website. Atheist Connect offers a list of The Top Ten Smoking Hot Atheist Women. I'll try to focus more on the top intellectually-fulfilling lists of atheists.One website, SuperScholar, has made a list of the "The 25 Most Influential Living Atheists" in the world aiming for those who "actively encourage others to disbelieve in God" and are considered to be "scholars in scholarly forums". The top four individuals on the list actually belong to the "New Atheism" movement, though one member has since deceased. The webpage for the New Atheism advocates "disregard for the tolerance of religion" and the militant tone of this movement is echoed by Dawkins in a book interview, "Reinventing the Future: Conversations With the World's Leading Scientists an interview" he said, "I am a fairly militant atheist, with a fair degree of active hostility toward religion. I certainly was hostile toward it at school, from the age of about sixteen onwards. I mellowed a bit in my twenties and thirties. But I'm getting more militant against it now."Richard DawkinsAs far as public forums go, Dawkins refuses to debate the top theist scholars, such as William Lane Craig. However, I suppose Dawkins may still be considered a top dog in certain atheist-only forums. In sticking to round table discussions with other like-minded atheist believers the deeper philosophical challenges to his beliefs can be safelyavoided.

Peter Singer would probably be considered just serious, and not so much a top celebrity by most people. However, he was found to be at the top of the "celebrity and seriousness" category. Atheists at my blog continue to claim that no one takes Singer seriously, that he is merely offering aberrant and fringe opinions. The noted website, however, offers a Singer quote with quite a bit of reverence, "Singer has written: 'The notion that human life is sacred just because it is human life is medieval.' We believe his blend of philosophical sophistication, extremism, and high public profile makes him the most formidable living atheist in the world."
In his book, Rethinking Life and Death, Singer states, "[The argument that a fetus is not alive] is a resort to a convenient fiction that turns an evidently living being into one that legally is not alive. Instead of accepting such fictions, we should recognise that the fact that a being is human, and alive, does not in itself tell us whether it is wrong to take that being's life."

In a published Princeton University FAQ, Singer states, "So killing a newborn baby is never equivalent to killing a person, that is, a being who wants to go on living." According to Singer's descriptions of person-hood, a mature dog is more of a "person" than a human infant because a mature dog has a life history and can demonstrate signs of existing as a being who "wants to go on living."

Singer and those who support his views are laying the ground for topping off the horrors of Nazi Germany, where the booklet Die Brennessel began the process of dehumanizing Jews by comparing them to hordes of rats.

Perhaps a major reason why Woody Allen is so popular as an atheist is because he is willing to address difficult questions with a head-on, direct approach. As a secular humanist, Woody Allen does not run away from the philosophical implications of his beliefs, as many secular humanists are prone to do today. Though he does appear to have respect for science, no one would accuse him of falling for the myth of Scientism. On the contrary, Allen's existential-nihilistic writings offer no pretensions that science is a kind of Magic 8-Ball that will eventually answer all of life's difficult questions. It seems that Allen has accepted his philosophical condition at face value and is simply out to try and make the best of it. One of Woody Allen's books is entitled, Woody Allen and Philosophy: You Mean My Whole Fallacy Is Wrong? In the Amazon book description it says, "...just because the universe is meaningless and life is pointless is no reason to commit suicide."

Tags: list of top atheists, most popular atheists, Google list of most searched for atheists, meaning of life, sexy photos of atheists, Woody Allen is most popular atheist, Peter Singer most popular atheist, Peter Singer quotes on bestiality, Singer infanticide quotes, nature of happiness, What is the meaning of life,

Their methodology is, as you might expect, entirely subjective; they took their list of top results, and then ranked them according to their own standard of "seriousness", which appears to be based on "How good a case do we think they could make for their point."

It is also worth noting that their list of "50 smartest people of faith" talks about how "Anyone who is interested in learning more about how reason supports religious faith could hardly do better than delve into their scholarship or other creative achievements, by following the links we provide."

While the standard for atheists is how well they could argue against faith.

I'll give the site credit; its methodology is clear, it's just not anything even faintly approaching objective.

Cute, might point some people at new people they want to read, but for anything else, pretty useless (Especially since they don't date their article, and their data is already at best obsolete, if not flat-out wrong.)

And, considering their eccentricity on other points, I'd hardly bother giving them much credit as a reputable source.

Atheists who post comments at my blog seem to have utilitarian moral views similar to Singer's. For example, yesterday someone named Anne Vincent posted a comment at my blog basically claiming that human cannibalism could be morally acceptable in contemporary civilization under hypothetical conditions. For example, eating pills made with dead human fetuses should not be considered immoral with the condition that they offer a vital medical cure that could neither be found in nature nor synthesized in a lab.

Oh, I see, Rick. You were setting up a trap with your hypothetical.

So; would you rather watch your child die than eat a pill that would cure them, made from something that would never have lived?

Because unless you say "no", the same thing you said about me is true about you.

So, tell me; you'd rather let your child die than take a pill that would save their life, coming from something that would never have lived.

A:So; would you rather watch your child die than eat a pill that would cure them, made from something that would never have lived?

Not to answer for Rick, but since I know him for a long time, I can tell that he abides by a rigid code of conduct from one of the millions of interpretentions of the bible. So yes, he would rather watch his own child die than give him a pill with products of foetuses at its base. And he has no qualms about them being tortured in hell for eternety if they becoma atheists.

You can also see how he misrepresents the views of his opponents, including the one s from Singer or your own. Straw men are a specialty of his.

A:So; would you rather watch your child die than eat a pill that would cure them, made from something that would never have lived?

- I don't consider difficult questions "traps" because I believe I have a sound basis for morality. Firstly, you have re-framed my question in such a manner that it is mischaracterized. You have not even mentioned the issue of human cannibalism which is a central facet of my original question. The issue is whether or not human cannibalism in the form of pills should ever be considered moral or ethical under any circumstances.

The central aspect of this issue in my opinion is the question of human exceptionalism and the basis of ethicial laws.

In my opinion, governments should be very careful to protect human dignity as a basis for civilization. For this reason, I do not believe that waterboarding and other forms of torture should be legal. I do not belieieve bestiality, infanticide, pedophilia or human cannibalism should be legalized by the government.

I could argue that there should be a high standard of human dignity and human exceptionalism without even considering spiritual reasons for such.

If a society does not promote respect for human life and human dignity, then the level of general love and goodwill will decrease. From a spiritual perspective I believe the corruption of human nature is a very real and serious threat.

Humans are creative enough to be able to create a veritable heaven on earth, but corrupt enough to be capable of creating a twisted hell on earth. Governemnts should create some checks and balances to avoid such corruption.

One also has to differentiate between governmental laws in general and moral values for individuals. In general, I believe human cannibalism should be illegal, including any commercialized cannibalism, such as making pills. That being said, if a plane crashes at the North Pole and one survivor eats some dead crash victims in order to survive, I do not believe such a person should go to jail.

A:So; would you rather watch your child die than eat a pill that would cure them, made from something that would never have lived?

- I don't consider difficult questions "traps" because I believe I have a sound basis for morality.

I called your questions "traps" because you ask very specific hypotheticals that are edge cases -- if you grant all this stuff, is this OK? And then when you later comment on people's answers, you leave out whatever qualifications you had to put on the quetion to get the answer you wanted, so it looks like you got an answer that isn't the one you really got. That's what I mean by a trap.

Also, you didn't answer my question.

Firstly, you have re-framed my question in such a manner that it is mischaracterized.

I made it more general. That should make it easier to answer, not harder.

You have not even mentioned the issue of human cannibalism which is a central facet of my original question. The issue is whether or not human cannibalism in the form of pills should ever be considered moral or ethical under any circumstances.

OK> Would you rather watch your child die than eat a pill made from non-viable human fetal material that would cure them?

It's a yes-or-no question.

The central aspect of this issue in my opinion is the question of human exceptionalism and the basis of ethicial laws.

Well, the aspect we were discussing in the last thread where you took my answer from was "objecitve" morality, so I don't see why I should care that much about what you consider "central" this time.

Oh, yeah -- and you never answered me over there, just took my answer over here, misrepresented it, and then charged on.

I believe human cannibalism should be illegal, including any commercialized cannibalism, such as making pills. That being said, if a plane crashes at the North Pole and one survivor eats some dead crash victims in order to survive, I do not believe such a person should go to jail.

So, let me get this straight -- it should be illegal to save lives in an organized fashion, (if the nonviable fetus pill your hypothetical proposed could do that) -- but not prosecuted if you save your life in a calamity. Is that right?

Is it immoral to eat a dead crash victim to survive?

The central aspect of this issue in my opinion is the question of human exceptionalism and the basis of ethicial laws.

In my opinion, governments should be very careful to protect human dignity as a basis for civilization. For this reason, I do not believe that waterboarding and other forms of torture should be legal. I do not belieieve bestiality, infanticide, pedophilia or human cannibalism should be legalized by the government.

I could argue that there should be a high standard of human dignity and human exceptionalism without even considering spiritual reasons for such.

If a society does not promote respect for human life and human dignity, then the level of general love and goodwill will decrease. From a spiritual perspective I believe the corruption of human nature is a very real and serious threat.

Humans are creative enough to be able to create a veritable heaven on earth, but corrupt enough to be capable of creating a twisted hell on earth. Governemnts should create some checks and balances to avoid such corruption.

One also has to differentiate between governmental laws in general and moral values for individuals. In general, I believe human cannibalism should be illegal, including any commercialized cannibalism, such as making pills. That being said, if a plane crashes at the North Pole and one survivor eats some dead crash victims in order to survive, I do not believe such a person should go to jail.

Sorry, I cut-and-pasted too much; this is the post without the extraneous stuff I didn't use:

A:So; would you rather watch your child die than eat a pill that would cure them, made from something that would never have lived?

- I don't consider difficult questions "traps" because I believe I have a sound basis for morality.

I called your questions "traps" because you ask very specific hypotheticals that are edge cases -- if you grant all this stuff, is this OK? And then when you later comment on people's answers, you leave out whatever qualifications you had to put on the quetion to get the answer you wanted, so it looks like you got an answer that isn't the one you really got. That's what I mean by a trap.

Also, you didn't answer my question.

Firstly, you have re-framed my question in such a manner that it is mischaracterized.

I made it more general. That should make it easier to answer, not harder.

You have not even mentioned the issue of human cannibalism which is a central facet of my original question. The issue is whether or not human cannibalism in the form of pills should ever be considered moral or ethical under any circumstances.

OK> Would you rather watch your child die than eat a pill made from non-viable human fetal material that would cure them?

It's a yes-or-no question.

The central aspect of this issue in my opinion is the question of human exceptionalism and the basis of ethicial laws.

Well, the aspect we were discussing in the last thread where you took my answer from was "objecitve" morality, so I don't see why I should care that much about what you consider "central" this time.

Oh, yeah -- and you never answered me over there, just took my answer over here, misrepresented it, and then charged on.

I believe human cannibalism should be illegal, including any commercialized cannibalism, such as making pills. That being said, if a plane crashes at the North Pole and one survivor eats some dead crash victims in order to survive, I do not believe such a person should go to jail.

So, let me get this straight -- it should be illegal to save lives in an organized fashion, (if the nonviable fetus pill your hypothetical proposed could do that) -- but not prosecuted if you save your life in a calamity. Is that right?

>I made it more general. That should make it easier to answer, not harder.

- In censoring out the main issue, human cannibalism, your question becomes very odd and not the kind of general question a person not familiar with our debate would likely understand.

Let's look at it again from a more "general" perspective, as you desire:

"would you rather watch your child die than eat a pill that would cure them, made from something that would never have lived?"

Answer: Antiobotics have never "lived", as sentient beings at least and, no, I would not rather watch my child die than eat an antibiotic pill.

>Is it immoral to eat a dead crash victim to survive?

- I've already stated my opinion: Human cannibalism should not be legal or endorsed by the state as a normal day-to-day legal issue, such as the manufacture of dead fetus pills. However, if there was an extreme case where a plane crashed in the arctic and the only way for a person to survive was to eat a dead victim or two, I do not believe such a person should be sent to prison.

Answer: Antiobotics have never "lived", as sentient beings at least and, no, I would not rather watch my child die than eat an antibiotic pill.

OK. So what's the difference between an antibiotic and cells harvested from non-viable fetal tissue, or cultures from non-viable fetal tissue? That the original source was human, is that all it is?

However, if there was an extreme case where a plane crashed in the arctic and the only way for a person to survive was to eat a dead victim or two, I do not believe such a person should be sent to prison.

I guess I don't get why someone should be pardoned in a catastrophe when the same level of thing -- using material that in that case would never have *been* a person, instead of was once a person, in an organized fashion -- isn't OK.

I guess your morality just doesn't make sense to me when you're answering the questions, instead of asking them.

Why is it OK to save a life in a crash site, when it's not OK to save a life in a hospital -- it's the same thing; giving a living person material from a non-living human, whether one who did live or one who never would.

OK> Would you rather watch your child die than eat a pill made from non-viable human fetal material that would cure them?

It's a yes-or-no question.

- Yes, and neither would I torture another, commit bestiality, murder, rape, incest, or pedophilia, even if this would save the life of my child. I believe in living by principles. And once a government decides it has the right to trample on human rights and human dignity, for all intents and purposes, that society becomes a very undesirable place to live for everyone.

I don't understand what your business about government has to do with the question, but feel free to toss whatever stuff you want in after your answer.

I guess I still don't understand why non-viable fetal material is worth dying to avoid consuming, while airplane crash victims don't even deserve going to jail, but that's between you and your conscience, and I hope you never have to make the distinction a practical one.

>I don't understand what your business about government has to do with the question...

- Questions on morality and ethics eventually pertain to questions of "What should be legal in society" and it's helpful to clarify the difference between personal moral choices and governmental laws.

For example, I would personally rather die of starvation that eat the flesh of another human being. I am morally opposed to cannibalism.

Also, I've fasted for 40 days drinking liquids and no solid foods and I found the experience to be healthy in more ways than one. There is a sense of peace that comes after three days when the stomach shuts down. Because I am not afraid of death, and because I do not find the fasting process to be frightening, I do not believe I would choose cannibalism if my plane went down in the arctic and I was the only survivor.

Nevertheless, I do not believe it would be right for the government to imprison someone in those circumstances who did commit cannibalism of dead crash victims.

>Why not? You've said you don't believe it, but you won't explain why it's different between "crash victims" and "non-viable fetal material."

- I've been trying to point out the difference between governmental ethics and personal moral choices. The fact that these entail different considerations does not mean there is no objective basis for morality.

In my opinion, a crash victim situation that puts a person immediately into a survival mode is different from a prolonged manufacturing industry that uses human fetus pills because the crash situation does not involve official endorsement and industrialized production.

The manufacture of human fetus pills would be a form of business and would have to be endorsed by the government in order to become a part of society. Even China, with all its human rights abuses, is apparently unwilling to make this process legal, though people there do eat human fetus pills illegally.

>But if there's an "objective" morality, why shouldn't governments live up to it too? Because it seems like cannibalism under some circumstances is less of a problem for you than maybe, say, theft.

- In the case of theft, a person may steal and break ethical codes as a white collar criminal who already has his personal needs met, or a person may steal because he feels a need to feed his family who seem to be very hungry.

In our present society, the former often receive no sentence whatsoever, while the latter are often harshly punished. The fact that there is a disparity in how justice is decided and executed does not negate the existence of objective values.

In a more just society, laws are designed to protect the weak and vulnerable who do not have a means of self protection. In our present society, abuses by the white collar criminals is leading to increased poverty for the rest of society.

In the case of the crash victims, they may be seen as highly vulnerable victims and therefore more latitude should be afforded with regard to the dispensation of justice.

In my opinion, a crash victim situation that puts a person immediately into a survival mode is different from a prolonged manufacturing industry that uses human fetus pills because the crash situation does not involve official endorsement and industrialized production.

So, it's OK to do something to save your life when you haven't planned for it, but not OK when you haven't? This really makes no sense.

And if the government doesn't punish people who engage in cannibalism to survive, it's saying it's OK to do so.

I mean, come on, you're saying it's worse in the government's eyes to steal a car than to eat someone to survive. BUt it's not OK to make an organized effort to save lives in the same way that you can save your life after a crash.

- In the case of theft, a person may steal and break ethical codes as a white collar criminal who already has his personal needs met, or a person may steal because he feels a need to feed his family who seem to be very hungry.

Isn't that what they call situational ethics unless they're treated exactly the same?

(I agree that it's wrong to punish the first more lightly than the second, but that only takes you so far.)

In the case of the crash victims, they may be seen as highly vulnerable victims and therefore more latitude should be afforded with regard to the dispensation of justice.

So how is a crash victim a more vulnerable victim than a terminally ill child, who'll die without non-viable fetal material treatments? Because they got lucky and are away from society?

>So, it's OK to do something to save your life when you haven't planned for it, but not OK when you haven't? This really makes no sense.

- I believe it actually does make sense in this case. There is a difference between premeditated murder and and other forms of killing. And, for example, a person stranded in the arctic who breaks into a cabin to get food to survive would not necessarily have the same level of guilt as a person who steals as a criminal business.

>So how is a crash victim a more vulnerable victim than a terminally ill child

- Which ones would be the greater victims in this case - the 8.5 month old fetusus who would be butchered for utilitarian purposes, or terminally ill children who would need fetal matter to survive?

In my opinion 8.5 month old fetuses are living human beings, as are younger fetusus. And I believe they are some of the greatest victims in society today.

And, for example, a person stranded in the arctic who breaks into a cabin to get food to survive would not necessarily have the same level of guilt as a person who steals as a criminal business.

Why did you delete my question about situational ethics? Because again, it seems to me, this is it again. I mean, the person who "steals as a criminal business" may be doing it to keep themselves fed, as well.

- Which ones would be the greater victims in this case - the 8.5 month old fetusus who would be butchered for utilitarian purposes, or terminally ill children who would need fetal matter to survive?

Whoa -- um. You need some reading comprehension. Let me quote:

"(if the nonviable fetus pill your hypothetical proposed could do that) ""OK. So what's the difference between an antibiotic and cells harvested from non-viable fetal tissue, or cultures from non-viable fetal tissue? "" guess I still don't understand why non-viable fetal material is worth dying to avoid consuming,""So how is a crash victim a more vulnerable victim than a terminally ill child, who'll die without non-viable fetal material treatments?"

See a word there, Rick? "non-viable"?

To quote from a Christian blog: "Ethical Sources of Embryonic Stem Cells

Clayton Cramer has come up with an idea for a source of hundreds of thousands of embryonic stem cells every year, without the ethical issues. There are several sources of embryonic stem cells, however, that provide no ethical problems: non-elective abortions; miscarriages; and deaths of pregnant women. Ectopic pregnancies are one example of a non-elective abortion, and even the Catholic Church recognizes that this is legitimate. Since there are about 100,000 ectopic pregnancies a year, this is a vast number of sources of embryonic stem cells.Miscarriages also produce embryonic tissue--and since a miscarriage is not an intentional act of killing the embryo, there is no ethical problem is using this tissue for research. I couldn't find a figure for the number of miscarriages annually, but I would be surprised if it isn't in the hundreds of thousands."

(http://www.stonescryout.org/archives/2005/08/ethical_sources.html)

I repeat my question, that you seem to be trying to avoid answering (since you cut the word out of your last response, I'll bold it this time so you can see it):

So how is a crash victim a more vulnerable victim than a terminally ill child, who'll die without non-viable fetal material treatments?

A couple helpful tips for you, Anne. Rick does have huge problem with reading comprehension, so it helps sometime when you outline the major points in capital letters. And do try to keep your posts short for him.

>Miscarriages also produce embryonic tissue--and since a miscarriage is not an intentional act of killing the embryo, there is no ethical problem is using this tissue for research.

- There is a moral difference between doing research on human tissue and consuming it. While

>So how is a crash victim a more vulnerable victim than a terminally ill child, who'll die without non-viable fetal material treatments?

- I had made a mistake in interpreting your question with regard to Singer's position. A "non-viable" naturally dead fetus is not a victim and a terminally ill child is probably just as much a victim as a crash victim.

Again, I would offer that a key issue is the manufacture of human fetus pills as an industry endorsed by the government. This is dehumanizing and another question arises as to where one draws the line in utilitarianism.

The Nazis made practical use of dead bodies manufacturing gloves and lampshades from human skin. If there is a practical and beneficial purpose, should people have the right to manufacture such products from any humans who die of natural causes? It seems this is where your logic leads.

- There is a moral difference between doing research on human tissue and consuming it.

So, it's OK to use it for research, and it's OK to consume it if it's an emergency (or at least not seriously punishable), but it's not OK if it's an emergency but you're in civilization.

Huh?

This is still situational ethics, which I know you've called other people on.

A "non-viable" naturally dead fetus is not a victim and a terminally ill child is probably just as much a victim as a crash victim.

So you wouldn't punish someone who gave a treatment using non-viable fetus material to a person who was dying, to save their life, right?

Again, I would offer that a key issue is the manufacture of human fetus pills as an industry endorsed by the government.

Do you think it's "endorsed" if the government doesn't criminalize it?

And what about injections of cultured fetal stem cell lines? Would that be OK, if it's not "eaten"?

And also, you don't get to decide what the "key issue" is all by yourself. This is, or at least I thought it was, a conversation. I think a key issue here is how you go into crazy hair-splitting mode and omit any reference to your situational ethics, but that's just *my* opinion.

If there is a practical and beneficial purpose, should people have the right to manufacture such products from any humans who die of natural causes? It seems this is where your logic leads.

No. Because you know what? You started this with your whole hypothetical about "things that couldn't be found in nature" that were in fetal material. Now you're trying to forget that. We can make lampshades and gloves out of other things.

So it's not where my logic leads.

But I'll remember to say, whenever I hear about Rick Warden, that "Oh, yeah, he's the guy who said that eating people who are already dead shouldn't be punished by the government" because that's just as honest as you're being with me here.

As far as I can understand your position, you believe that it's ethically OK to use human fetal matter in manufacturing pills if necessary in surviving some kind of medical emergencies, but it's not ethical to use human skin to make gloves because gloves can be made with other leather and the main issue is survival.

However, I would offer that human survival from medical emergencies does not trump human dignity as an ethical factor, and here's a reason why:

1. The human population on earth is increasing steadily and threatening the resources and environment.

2. Natural illnesses and disease help to curb human population growth.

3. Therefore, surviving medical emergencies should not necessarily be considered the primary factor in deciding ethical questions. Human dignity and respect for human life may also be considered a significant factor.

1. The human population on earth is increasing steadily and threatening the resources and environment.

And this is why you're a situational ethicist. And, in this case, you're being utilitarian, too. Hey! I get it; you're trying to pretend to be Peter Singer!

2. Natural illnesses and disease help to curb human population growth.

3. Therefore, surviving medical emergencies should not necessarily be considered the primary factor in deciding ethical questions. Human dignity and respect for human life may also be considered a significant factor.

OK, first of all, this is a "Why we should consider this", not a "why it doesn't trump it" argument. Second, you're saying that 'Because there are too many people, we should let people die because it's more dignified."

We're respecting human life by letting people die who don't have to.

What?

I went back and looked at some of the archives, and I saw people say that was was really important to you was winning -- not the argument you started out with, but anything.

-No, the basis of my personal moral and ethical reasoning is God's existence, However, since you obviously do not believe in God, I am presenting secular reasoning as a critique of your secular arguments.

>OK, first of all, this is a "Why we should consider this", not a "why it doesn't trump it" argument.

- Ethical value judgments from a secular perspective do actually seem to be based on comparing priorities.

Didn't you point out the critical factor that the saving of a human life was of a very high importance, thus being a consideration with regard to comparing the utilitarian differences between the making of human-skin gloves and the making human fetus medical pills?

If the saving of human life does not trump the practical use of making human-skin gloves, as the Nazis did, then why bring it up at all?

>We're respecting human life by letting people die who don't have to.

Yes, to let people die of natural causes, as people always have, shows more respect for human dignity than would the manufacture of pills made from human fetuses as a possible means of saving some extreme cases.

>You are offering an unnatural solution utilizing a dehumanizing procedure.

- As a theist, I believe that ethical human exceptionalism is based on the fact that we are created in God's image with certain characteristics that other created creatures do not possess. On of these characteristics is the ability to use logic and reason in order to comprehend the meaning and purpose of life on a scale than transcends our own personal wants and needs. Victor Frankle referred to this as the need of self transcendence.

I'm not sure if he ever outright stated his beliefs either way. But, based on some of the movies I have watched, he seems pretty convinced there is no God. I don't see any serious weighing of this question at all, just assumptions and implications that God does not exist.

He was certainly nihilistic! BTW, I used that quote myself in an article about cheap excuses for disbelief. Although the Woody Allen quote was not put forward as something serious, other excuses for disbelief come off as unintentionally silly.

Also, the "silliness" part includes an atheist that was on "Unbelieveable?", who said that he prayed to God for something silly, like a new bicycle. When he did not get it, he concluded that God didn't exist. Sure, buddy.

>It's fine to post fluff pieces on your own blog, of course; "top atheists" lists are just as fluffy.

- If you were the baby or old person being snuffed out, I'm not sure if you would still call Peter Singer's views (as a top atheist representative) a fluff topic. I forgot to add a little gratuitous fluff about Singer in the Princetonian:

Funny thing... There is almost not a single contreversial quote from Singer in the article. Most are quotes from his opponents. Giving your low credibility rate anyway, you rant amounts to zero.

I also do wonder when your thick skull will get it that what is important is reason here and not appeal to authority. Your attempts to discredit atheism by pointing to supposedly "wrong" views of a singule atheist is just ridiculous and pathetic.

Oh! I also forgot to remind you a little secret, being part of the academic community is not the same as being the pope. Scholars do not claim their worldview amount to perfection and impeccability, unlike christians 8)

P.S. I can also bet that you have never read any paper of Singer. You base your worldview on second-hand reports like with Romeo Castelluci. You remind me of Khrushchev, Rick. A quote from him: "I have not seen your painting, but I was told it was crap. I am convinced it is crap"

>Funny thing... There is almost not a single contreversial quote from Singer in the article. Most are quotes from his opponents. Giving your low credibility rate anyway, you rant amounts to zero.

Here are some nice quotes for you. I added them to the article because there are probably others who doubt Singer's actual views:

In 2001, Peter Singer quotes in The Princetonian underscored what Singer believes with regard to bestiality. For example, this quote by Singer with regard to dogs humpling the legs of visitors: "The host usually discourages such activities, but in private not everyone objects to being used by her or his dog in this way, and occasionally mutually satisfying activities may develop."Singer also describes the advances of an orangutan on a woman: "The potential violence of the orangutan's come-on may have been disturbing, but the fact that it was an orangutan making the advances was not." Singer's view was summarized by the Princetonian: "If you're not willing to disapprove of all non-procreative sex, then you should reconsider the taboo on bestiality."

Hm... Let us recap... You accuse Singer of advocating the murder of old people and children. When you are being called upon it, you offer his quotes about pets humping the legs of human beings... Yep, it all makes sense...

Well, given that you see no difference between bestiality, infanticide or just plain homosexuality, why am I not suprised?

“The notion that human life is sacred just because it is human life is medieval.”

But there are some more nice examples I've added:

In his book, Rethinking Life and Death, Singer states, "[The argument that a fetus is not alive] is a resort to a convenient fiction that turns an evidently living being into one that legally is not alive. Instead of accepting such fictions, we should recognise that the fact that a being is human, and alive, does not in itself tell us whether it is wrong to take that being's life."

In a published Princeton University FAQ, Singer states, "So killing a newborn baby is never equivalent to killing a person, that is, a being who wants to go on living."

According to Singer's definitions, a mature rat is more of a "person" than a human infant. Singer and those who support his views are laying the ground for horrors similar to those of Nazi Germany, where the booklet Die Brennessel began the process of dehumanizing Jews by comparing them to hordes of rats.

R:The article already outined Singer quotes 'justifying' human murder, just like killing a fish:“The notion that human life is sacred just because it is human life is medieval.”

Nope, Rick. That does not follow at all. Human life can be important without relying on the medieval concept of just because. Singer offers reasons in his FAQ why human murder is not equivalant to killing a fish. Let us expose your lies as always with capital letters at the important parts:

"But when it comes to a question of taking life, or allowing life to end, it matters whether a being is the kind of being WHO CAN SEE THAT HE OR SHE ACTUALLY HAS A LIFE -- that is, can see that he or she is the same being who exists now, who existed in the past, and who will exist in the future. Such a being has more to lose than a being incapable of understand this. Any normal human being past infancy will have such a sense of existing over time. I’m not sure that mice do, and if they do, their time frame is probably much more limited. So normally, the death of a human being is a GREATER LOSS to the human than the death of a mouse is to the mouse – for the human, IT CUTS OFF PLANS FOR THE DISTANT FUTURE, for example, but NOT IN THE CASE OF THE MOUSE. And we can add to that the greater extent of grief and distress that, in most cases, the family of the human being will experience, as compared with the family of the mouse (although we should not forget that animals, especially mammals and birds, can have close ties to their offspring and mates). That’s why, in general, IT WOULD BE RIGHT TO SAVE THE HUMAN, and NOT THE MOUSE, from the burning building, if one could not save both."

R:But there are some more nice examples I've added:

Yep, quote minning as always, Rick. Let us take the full quote from his FAQ to uncover your dishonesty with traditional capital letters:

"I use the term "person" to refer to a being who is capable of anticipating the future, of having wants and desires for the future. As I have said in answer to the previous question, I think that it is generally a greater wrong to kill such a being than it is to kill a being that has no sense of existing over time. Newborn human babies have no sense of their own existence over time. So killing a newborn baby is never equivalent to killing a person, that is, a being who wants to go on living. THAT DOESN’T MEAN THAT IT IS NOT ALMOST ALWAYS A TERRIBLE THING TO DO."

So no call for infanticide, just statement that not all lifes are equal. As for the murder of old folks:

"So if someone would not have wanted to be kept alive after losing their awareness of their future, we may be justified in ending their life; but if they would not have wanted to be killed under these circumstances, that is an important reason why WE SHOULD NOT DO SO."

- A dog may be a better example for you than a rat because a dog is able to show more verifiable signs that it "wants" to go on living:

In a published Princeton University FAQ, Singer states, "So killing a newborn baby is never equivalent to killing a person, that is, a being who wants to go on living." According to Singer's descriptions of person-hood, a mature dog is more of a "person" than a human infant because a mature dog has a life history and can demonstrate signs of existing as a being who "wants to go on living."

Singer may call killing human fetuses a "terrible" thing, but this does not negate his moral and ethical position, which is quite clear.

As far as killing the elderly is concerned, what basis does Singer offer for claiming that past wishes and abilities justify present restrictions?

Simply because a person used to have a strong memory and claimed that he didn't want to be killed, why should that give a person more rights today than a person who has a very weak memory and never offered any opinion on consent to being killed? Maybe the person with the good memory would have changed his mind by now if sentient?

Why should a past personal opinion have any bearing in a utilitarian view in today's world when a person is not functioning properly today? On what objective basis should past "wants" even be a consideration according to his views? - just because he arbitrarily claims it should be so?

Singer and those who support his views are laying the ground for horrors similar to those of Nazi Germany, where the booklet Die Brennessel began the process of dehumanizing Jews by comparing them to hordes of rats.

The same way Martin Luther laid the grounds for the horrors of Nazi Germany by referring to Jews as "poisonous envenomed worms"and saying "[w]e are at fault in not slaying them"?

So I take it we can now, by that argument, hold that those whose theological views derive from Luther are fomenting genocide?

I notice you use the Nazis whenever you seem to be running out of arguments, Rick.

R:A dog may be a better example for you than a rat because a dog is able to show more verifiable signs that it "wants" to go on living...

Hm...First you claim that Singer thinks that a human is no better than a rat and you are proven wrong by an almost direct quote... Now you try to change it human VS dog... Let me try again to make your thick skull understand by quoting Singer:

"So normally, the death of a human being is a GREATER LOSS to the human than the death of a mouse is to the mouse – for the human, IT CUTS OFF PLANS FOR THE DISTANT FUTURE, for example, but NOT IN THE CASE OF THE MOUSE."

Now change the words "mouse" to "dog" and feel sorry for your stupidity. ANIMALS DO NOT ANTICIPATE THE FAR FUTURE! ANIMALS DO NOT UNDERSTAND WHAT BEING ALIVE MEANS! That is the main difference between human beings and animals, according to Singer.

R:According to Singer's descriptions of person-hood, a mature dog is more of a "person" than a human infant because a mature dog has a life history and can demonstrate signs of existing as a being who "wants to go on living."

Liar and idiot. You just pick a single criteria and ignore all the others like with Maslow. "Wanting to go living" is only ONE of multiple aspects from the point of view of Singer.

Nowhere does Singer state that a dog has personhood. On the contrary, the dog does not demonstrate signs of anticipating the distant future, which is an essential criteria for Singer.

And the life of a baby is still much more valuable than the life of an animal because a human baby is much more important to his parents than the life of a dog.

R:As far as killing the elderly is concerned, what basis does Singer offer for claiming that past wishes and abilities justify present restrictions?

Red herring. You claimed he called for the murder of the elderly. You were proven to be a liar. Full stop.

R:Singer may call killing human fetuses a "terrible" thing, but this does not negate his moral and ethical position, which is quite clear.

I bet Singer would be suprised if he did learn how your sick mind, obsessed with bestiality and so on, has completely distorted his position. I have not even read any books of Singer. I am just using the links you provided yourself, Rick. That proves to be enough to uncover your lies.

of course like your web site but you have to take a look at the spelling on several of your posts. Many of them are rife with spelling problems and I in finding it very bothersome to tell the reality however I will definitely come back again.Feel free to surf my blog post - play slots online for real money